Ron Stodden wrote:
>
> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> > Actually, there is a third beta which have been made up by us last week. I
> > think it's just a matter of hours it appears on mirrors as an ISO-image,
> > at least this was my information from our Quality Assurance team, at the
> > end of last week :-).
> >
> > Current cooker has been heavily modified since this third beta, because of
> > i486, sparc, and alpha port, on which we're currently working.
> >
> > For all of you cookers out there, who wish to test our third beta [which
> > should be closer as never to the final version..] I must apologize for the
> > delay, and ask you to wait a little bit more, for availability of ISO
> > image.
>
> Do you not realise how silly this approach is for beta testers?
I can make CDs and Install from them on several machines, but I
cannot for many reasons follow the rsync/burn/test cycle. For
one thing, I cannot keep the space tied up on the machines
here--I have to burn it to CD as soon as DL is finished, then
clear the space for other operations, and restore the files I
took off from CD backups. Obviously, I can DL an iso only on
weekends. I have the space on my personal machines but a
connection that tops out at about 20K when I am lucky, and dies
often.
If
> you have distribution room for the 2 iso image files (which are of
> little direct use unless one burns two CDs, since you do NOT supply
> an iso.img floppy from which we can directly install or upgrade),
> then you have room for a distribution tree to replace it, from which
> those unenlightened souls who need CDs can mkisofs an iso image, and
> we enlightened others can use the hd.img floppy to install or upgrade
> from it.
>
> The only iso image file you should need to make is for the final 7.1
> gold release to the CD pressing shop. We quite simply have NO need
> of it, and do not understand what you are on about.
>
> Until that time, as I have said before, cooker is to contain the 7.1
> frozen hydrogen beta you want us to test - in accordance with Gael
> Duval's promise in his beta announcement. It is that simple!
>
No, it isn't that simple. The whole idea of alpha, beta, and
software development was a MADE UP thing, created from the minds
of academics as their best GUESS at what process fitted a certain
situation.
I am not trying to denigrate their efforts at finding some form
in the chaos, just trying to place them in perspective. Now we
have two differences that must be considered.....
Alpha, Beta, etc. were created as concepts at a time when this
open testing process was unthinkable except as a castle in the
air. And it was designed for a COMMERCIAL software development
process, the type that Microsoft does, in fact.
I have said it before, and I will say it again here. We have no
data to support that one process produces faster, better code
than another. In God we trust, all others bring data. Arguments
from logic (authority) or "this is the way it's done" (tradition)
mean little when we should be comparing the results and timelines
of the various processes, calculating process capabilities, and
examining special causes. But we aren't even there, yet. First
we would have to agree on what to measure. That could be
achieved through a process called imagineering--designing a
system as if things were perfect then engineering it back to
earth.
Obviously one criterion would be/should be the comfort level of
beta testers, including you. (That is, if we discover that an
equivalent of a beta cycle is a desirable feature of a system.)
What I am trying to say, Ron, is that we never, as a human
species, took a scientific approach to optimizing software
development. We have operated on theories propounded from logic,
authority and tradition without evidence, mainly on the basis
that order is better than chaos, and educed a theory that fits a
model of development we aren't even following in several of its
precursor conditions.
I will support an open forum to find something better than what
we do now, but I am not willing to concede at this point that
anyone has a good handle on what that might be.
Civileme
> If you wish to work on the i486, sparc, and alpha ports without
> disturbing the beta, keep them in-house until they have passed their
> alpha tests. The beta test of them will then require additional
> separately-named distribution space separate from Cooker. If you
> phase their release, then they are different products, which implies
> separation.
I agree with that statement and hope they are doing this only
because they have space problems, as I do.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Ron. [AU, Mandrake Linux].
